AN ESTIMATE BY THE HERITAGE FOUNDATION SAYS THE SENATE IMMIGRATION REFORM BILL WOULD COST TAXPAYERS $6.3 TRILLION OVER 50 YEARS. DO YOU AGREE WITH THIS CONCLUSION?

Tell us what you think: Go to

Last week: Is there an economic benefit to charging local sales taxes on all Internet transactions?

NO: 75%

YES: 25%

Online poll results

YES and NO: Heritage correctly highlights unlawful immigrants tend to have relatively low education and work in relatively low-wage jobs. Over their lifetime they are likely to consume more government services than pay in taxes. The report errs, however, by not considering significant benefits arising to the economy from undocumented workers moving out of the shadows and becoming full taxpayers. It also does not consider the impacts from some of those immigrants being more able to move up the income ladder. In other words, the report only describes gross effects of unlawful immigration on the federal budget and not net impact.

NO: One problem with the Heritage Foundation report is that it uses static analysis and doesn’t fully take into account the positive impact of immigration reform on the economy. The libertarian Cato Institute found that immigration reform would boost the economy by $1.5 trillion over a 10-year period due to greater productivity and economic activity from those who would otherwise be in the shadows of society. The rest of the economy would also benefit, including more revenue being generated at all levels of government. The same study shows a negative impact of $2.6 trillion if all those who are now here illegally were forced out of the country.

NO: It is very difficult to estimate the added number of immigrants that would result from this legislation, let alone to calculate the added tax revenues from their earnings and the total expenses for government transfers and services for them over the next 50 years. I think it is more meaningful to look at the consequences for the distribution of income. Having more people seeking low-skilled jobs is a benefit to employers who get to hire cheap labor, but hurts American workers who are also trying to get those low-paying jobs. Immigration is one reason why those on the bottom have been falling farther behind.

NO: I do not trust this research and I do not believe these conclusions. Mexicans and other immigrants have mostly not received Social Security and unemployment benefits, although most pay into those funds. They have not been able to claim the benefits because many, if not most, do not have legitimate Social Security numbers. If immigrants are offered amnesty, they are on the exact same footing as U.S. citizens and therefore their tax and benefit contributions/withdrawals are the same as you or I. It is true that the government will lose money on them, but at the same rate as they lose money on the rest of us.

NO: It is impossible to estimate anything 50 years out. The analysis makes assumptions that are very speculative, e.g., that illegal residents never leave. They do, especially when they reach retirement age. It also presumes that most illegal (immigrants) don’t currently use many public services. They do and they often pay Social Security using fake numbers. Last, it totally ignores the below-market wages paid to such workers, which are a huge economic benefit to produce farmers, consumers of produce, smaller hotels and many other hard labor jobs that legal residents don’t want to do. These wages would certainly go up and until such time we all benefit from the contributions of cheap labor.

NO: While certain elements of the Heritage Foundation study might be true, different reports and assumptions have indicated varying estimates of the costs of illegal immigration. The Heritage study acknowledges that a legalization program would reduce costs during the initial phase (more than a decade) as immigrants move from the underground economy and pay higher taxes. Concerns focus on higher means-tested benefits and old-age benefits over time. However, more education, higher wages, more self-sufficiency, benefits to U.S. companies and ending the current stigma of fear and uncertainty make solving our illegal immigration problem a compelling proposition.

NO: The Heritage study assumes that “illegals” who become citizens would all remain in low-skill and low-pay jobs indefinitely. Very unlikely. It also assumes that U.S. GDP would not benefit from the contributions of these future citizens, when almost all economists who study immigration agree that U.S. GDP would be substantially higher with the proposed immigration reform, generating a lot of additional tax revenue. Over the next 13 years, during which time the (unauthorized immigrants) are not eligible for federal benefits, there is a net fiscal saving even under the flawed assumptions of the paper.

NO: Immigrants now comprise more than 12 percent of the American population, approaching levels not seen since the 1920s. About 28 percent of the total foreign-born population could be unauthorized, some 11 million people. So, although the concern has merit, as long as the U.S. remains the land of opportunity, not guaranteed entitlements, it should be able to continue to prosper and grow from the contributions of immigrants. Although currently roughly 30 percent of immigrants lack a high school diploma, nearly four times the U.S. average, immigration policies can be adjusted to ensure the U.S. attracts and retains people with the greatest opportunity (education and skills) to contribute to economic growth.